' This appeal arises from the decision dated 6-12-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent Union was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs,40 as cost of living allowance to the workers and that the said amount could not be set off against any increase given in the settlement dated 12-2-1980. Back benefits were also allowed.
2. The facts are that a 'settlement was arrived at between the parties on 12-2-1980, according to which, house rent allowance was increased from Rs,25 to Rs,50 per mensem and conveyance allowance was increased from Rs,25 to Rs,40 and increase of Rs,20 per mensem in the monthly wages was made due to increase in the prices of necessities of life. Ordinance XXXII of 1980 to amend the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 was promulgated with effect from 1-7-1980, whereby subsection (4) was added to section 3 and a proviso was appended to it. Under subsection (4) an amount of Rs,40 was allowed as cost of living allowance, but in the proviso it was added that the amount paid by the employer under any settlement or award would be set off from the dearness allowance allowed under subsection (4). The appellant, thereupon, deducted Its.40 from the amounts granted on the basis of the settlement and instead of paying Rs,50 under the settlement paid Rs,20 per mensem only. This act of the appellant was challenged by the respondent union in its grievance petition, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned trial Judge has held that if any amount under any settlement or award is given as cost of living allowance, the same can be set off, but as by the settlement the increase was not allowed by the employer as high cost of living allowance, therefore, the same could not be set off and the workers were entitled to full amount covered by the settlement, besides Rs,40 per mensem allowed under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The learned lower court has rightly interpreted the proviso to subsection (4). The intention of the Legislature by inserting subsection (4) and appending to it proviso was not that if the workers are getting any kind of amount under any settlement or award, the same is to be set off against the amount of Rs,40 allowed by the amending Ordinance of 1980. The amount of Rs,40 has been allowed as high cost of living allowance, therefore, according to reasonable and save interpretation, only that amount can be set off, which the employer is paying as cost of living allowance and not in any other manner. By the settlement increase of Rs,20 only was made on account of the rise in the prices of the necessities of life, but the conveyance allowance and the house rent allowance were not allowed on that score. The reason for claiming increase in the house rent allowance was that the rent of the houses had gone high and the reason for increasing conveyance allowance was that the prices of the bicycles and the fare of the transport had been increased. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1981 PLC 705, 1981 PLC 566, 1981 PLC 716 and 1981 PLC 482. The first mentioned ruling is not relevant, because it deals with the interpretation of section 8 and its explanation. 1981 PLC 705 rather goes against him, because while interpreting newly added subsection (4) of section 3 in the Employees Cost of Living (Relief)
Act, it has been observed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that the words 'the amount' should be construed with reference to cost of living allowance payable under the Act and cannot be deemed to include every kind of amount payable under an agreement or settlement or award. If the intention of the Legislature had been that every kind of amount Payable under any settlement or award would be set off against the cost of living allowance allowed by the newly-added subsection (4) of reaction 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, not the word 'the' but the word 'any' would have been used with the word 'amount'. The intention of the insertion of subsection (4) was to provide further relief to the workers on account of ever-increasing prices of the necessities of life, therefore, no such interpretation can be given which goes against the very spirit of the amendment. In 1981 PLC 716 it has been observed:- "Cost of Living Allowance payable under Ordinance not adjustable against the amount payable to the workers under such settlement."
' In 1981 PLC 482 it has been observed:- "It is a rule of interpretation that the appropriate function of a proviso is to restrain or modify an enacting clause or preceding matter and it should be confined to what precedes. The proviso being a limitation upon the preceding enactment cannot enlarge the scope of the principal Act itself. It is with this view that the proviso has to be interpreted in a strict manner."
' There is no dispute about the interpretation of proviso to subsection (4) of section 3. There is no denying fact that it restricts the provision of subsection (4) by providing that the amount payable under any settlement or award would be a set off against the cost of living allowance payable under subsection (4). The question involved is whether every kind of amount payable under the settlement or award would be a set off or only an amount payable as cost of living allowance would be adjustable. It has not been observed in this authority that every kind of amount payable under an award or settlement is adjustable. So this ruling also is not helpful.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that section 8 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 saves the rights. I cannot agree with him. Section 8 no doubt saves the rights but reference is made in it to section 3 of the Act before it was amended. By the insertion of subsection (4) in section 3 and appending to it a proviso it has been specifically provided that the amount payable under any settlement, or award would be adjustable in the amount of cost of living allowance allowed under subsection (4). After the insertion of subsection
(4) and the proviso appended to it, section 8 would be read alongwith the proviso to subsection (4).
4. After the long discussion made above, the matter boils down to this that only that amount paid under any settlement or award can be a set off against the amount allowed under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, which was allowed under the Settlement or award as cost of living allowance, or on account of the increase in the prices of the necessities of life. Since Rs,20 were allowed as increase in the monthly pay, on account of the increase in the prices of the necessities of life, only this amount is adjustable and not the conveyance allowance and the house rent allowance. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the learned lower court, directing that only Rs,20 allowed under the settlement as increase in the wages on account of cost of living allowance is adjustable and not the rest. The workers will be entitled to back-benefits proportionately according to the set off allowed by me.